See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/233260865

Port Economics, Policy and Management: Content Classification and Survey

Article  in  Transport Reviews · July 2011

DOI: 10.1080/01441647.2010.530699

CITATIONS READS

56 2,499

4 authors:

Athanasios A. Pallis Thomas K. Vitsounis

University of the Aegean University of the Aegean
100 PUBLICATIONS   1,300 CITATIONS    12 PUBLICATIONS   167 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Peter W. De Langen Theo Notteboom

Copenhagen Business School Shanghai Maritime University / University of Antwerp / Ghent University / A…
84 PUBLICATIONS   2,034 CITATIONS    176 PUBLICATIONS   5,123 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

PPRN - Port finance View project

Port-city relationships View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Theo Notteboom on 05 February 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

  

 
Port  Economics,  Policy  and  Management  –  Content  Classification  and  Survey  
 
Author(s):  Pallis,  A.A.,  Vitsounis,  T.K.,  De  Langen,  P.W,  Notteboom,  T.E.  
 

  This  paper  had  been  presented  at:        

  Transport  Reviews,  31(4);445-­‐471.  

 
Please site this article as: Pallis,   Athanasios   A.,   Vitsounis,   Thomas   K.   ,   De   Langen,   Peter   W.   and  
 
Notteboom,   Theo  E.(2011)  'Port  Economics,  Policy  and  Management:  Content  Classification  and  Survey',  
Transport  Reviews,  Vol.  31(4),  pp.  445-­‐471
 

 
This article was uploaded to www.porteconomics.eu
 
On: 21/27/2011

 
Porteconomics.eu is a non-profit, web-based initiative aiming to advance knowledge exchange on
 
seaport studies. Developed by researchers affiliated to various academic institutions throughout
Europe, it provides freely accessible research, education and network-building material on critical
 
issues of port economics, management and policies.

                                                                                                   PLEASE  SCROLL  DOWN  FOR  MANUSCRIPT  

 
  

Pallis,  Athanasios  A.,  Vitsounis,  Thomas  K.  ,  De  Langen,  Peter  W.  and  
Notteboom,  Theo  E.(2011)  'Port  Economics,  Policy  and  Management:  Content  
Classification  and  Survey',  Transport  Reviews,  Vol.  31(4),  pp.  445-­‐471  

Abstract  
 

This   paper   presents   a   taxonomy   and   content   analysis   of   research   in   port   economics,   policy   and  
management   (‘port   studies’).   There   is   a   growing   interest   in   the   study   of   ports,   yet   the   research  
characteristics   and   directions   of   this   research   field   are   unidentified.   This   paper   provides   a   systematic  
analysis  of  port  studies  published  the  period  1997-­‐2008.  Based  on  a  cross-­‐citation  analysis  and  content  
survey,  seven  themes  of  port  studies  are  identified  The  content  of  each  theme  is  analysed  by  focusing  on  
research   topics,   widely   used   research   questions,   concepts   and   research   methods,   and   the   most  
important   research   findings.   Finally,   we   identify   emerging   research   questions   that   still   need   to   be  
answered.   In   pair   with   Pallis   et   al   (2010),   this   study   provides   a   complete   and   detailed   analysis   of   port  
related  published  research  during  the  period  1997-­‐2008.    

Keywords:  port  studies,  citation  analysis,  content  classification,  survey  

1. Introduction  
 

This  paper  presents  a  detailed  analysis  of  research  in  port  economics,  policy  and  management  (hereafter  
termed  ‘port  studies’)  based  on  the  examination  of  all  journal  papers  published  in  the  period  1997-­‐2008.  
In   an   earlier   paper   in   Transport   Reviews,   Pallis   et   al   (2010)1   provide   a   bibliometric   analysis   of   395  
relevant  papers  (published  in  51  different  journals,  see  Appendixes  I  &  II),  concluding  that  port  studies  
lack   coherence:   authors   tend   to   study   ports   in   their   ‘home   country’.   International   comparative   research,  
and  international  cooperation  between  scholars  are  still  limited.    

The   present   paper   develops   a   taxonomy   for   port   studies   and   surveys   the   different   research   themes   in  
detail.   The   395   papers   are   classified   in   seven   research   themes   (see   Table   1).   Such   a   classification   is   to  
                                                                                                                       
1
  The   database   contains   port   studies   in   international   journals   published   in   English.   Conference   papers,   book  
chapters,  research  thesis,  in-­‐house  published  journals  etc  have  been  excluded  (see  Pallis  et  al,  2010).  

2  
 
  

some   extent   subjective;   some   papers   address   two   or   more   research   themes2.   The   taxonomy   was  
developed   according   to   the   following   process:   each   author   classified   the   papers   independently.   There  
was  agreement  on  the  vast  majority  of  the  papers.  The  remaining  papers  were  discussed  in  detail  and  
classified   jointly.   The   resulting   classification   is   a   valuable   and   necessary   part   of   a   comprehensive  
overview  of  port  studies.    

Table  1.  Port  Studies  1997-­‐2008  

Total  
Number  
Category   2007-­‐2008   2002-­‐2006   1997-­‐2001  
of  Papers  

1. Terminal  studies   40   10   22   8  

2. Ports  in  transport  &  supply  chains   56   22   20   14  

3. Port  governance   61   15   23   23  

4. Port  planning  &  development   57   10   24   23  

5. Port  policy  &  regulation   67   19   24   24  

6. Port  competition  &  competitiveness   74   22   43   9  

7. Spatial  analysis  of  seaports   40   11   15   14  

Total   395   109   171   115  

Table   2   shows   the   citations   between   the   different   themes.   Relatively   many   citations   are   to   other   papers  
that   address   the   same   theme.   This   frequent   ‘within   theme’   citation   suggests   that   the   content  
classification  is  valid  and  useful.3    

 
                                                                                                                       
2
    For   instance,   a   number   of   papers   measure   terminal   productivity   (Category   1.   Terminal   studies)   and   link   the  
results  to  port  governance  (Category  3.  Port  governance).  In  this  case,  the  papers  are  classified  in  Category  1,  as  
their  contribution  is  mostly  in  the  field  of  terminal  studies.      
3
  The   references   from   all   395   papers   were   plotted   in   a   395x395   matrix;   self-­‐citations   were   excluded;   and   a   two  
years   ‘publication   time   gap’   between   submitting   a   paper   and   the   final   publication   was   assumed;   for   a   discussion   of  
the  results  of  the  cross-­‐citation  exercise  in:  Pallis  et  al,  2010).  

3  
 
  

Table  2.  Coherence  expressed  in  Citation  Ratios  within  and  between  research  themes  

  Cited  to  

Port  planning  &  development    

Port  policy  &  regulation  (62)  

Spatial  analysis  of  seaports    

Ports  in  transport  &  supply  
 

Port  governance  (54)  

competitiveness  (71)  
Port  competition  &  
Terminal  studies  

chains  (56)  
 

(  38)  

 (48)  

(32)  
 

Cited  from  

Terminal  studies  (30)   1,00   0,23   0,15   0,31   0,10   0,40   0,05  

Ports  in  transport  

and  supply  chains   0,20   1,00   0,32   0,42   0,14   0,42   0,32  
(34)  

Port  governance  (46)   0,40   0,58   1,00   0,51   0,20   0,28   0,22  

Port  planning  and  

0,44   0,65   0,48   1,00   0,34   0,43   0,69  
development  (47)  

Port  policy  &  

0,18   0,43   0,78   0,82   1,00   0,61   0,15  
regulation  (48)  

Port  competition  &  

0,65   0,35   0,27   0,62   0,11   1,00   0,12  
competitiveness  (52)  

Spatial  analysis  of  

0,19   1,00   0,20   0,34   0,06   0,32   0,92  
seaports  (29)  

*  Ratio  =  number  of  times  Category  A  cites  a  given  Category  B  /  number  of  times  that  Category  A  cites  the  Category  
‘that  is  most  cited  by  Category  A’.  

 
This   paper   reviews   the   main   findings   and   current   research   challenges   of   the   seven   research   themes,  
focusing  on  the  most  cited  papers  (Table  3).  Due  to  a  ‘publication  time  gap’  between  submission  and  the  
final   publication   (see   e.g.   Bontekoning   et   al,   2004;   Stahlbock   &   Voss,   2008),   studies   published   in   2007  
and  2008  are  also  discussed  in  more  detail.    

The  analysis  discusses  (a)  the  widely  used  research  questions,  (b)  concepts,  (c)  research  methods,  (d)  the  
most  important  research  findings;  and  concludes  on  (e)  new  research  challenges.    

4  
 
  

Table  3.  Most  Cited  Port  Studies  (1997-­‐2008)  

Cate-­‐ Author   Year   Title   No  of  

gory   citations  
Tongzon   2001   Efficiency  measurement  of  selected  Australian  and  other  international  ports   26  
using  data  envelopment  analysis  
Notteboom  et  al   2000   Measuring  and  Explaining  the  Relative  Efficiency  of  Container  Terminals  by   22  
Terminal  Studies,  

means  of  Bayesian  Stochastic  Frontier  Models  

Category  1:  

Cullinane  et  al   2002   A  stochastic  frontier  model  of  the  efficiency  of  major  container  terminals  in   15  
Asia:  assessing  the  influence  of  administrative  and  ownership  structures  
Haralambides  et  al   2002   Costs,  Benefits  and  Pricing  of  Dedicated  Container  Terminals   15  
Tongzon  &  Heng   2005   Port  privatization,  efficiency  and  competitiveness:  Some  empirical  evidence   12  
from  container  ports  (terminals)  
Airriess   2001   The  regionalization  of  Hutchison  Port  Holdings  in  Mainland  China   8  

Robinson   2002   Ports  as  elements  in  value-­‐driven  chain  systems:  the  new  paradigm   31  
Ports  in  Transport  &  Supply  Chains  

Heaver  et  al   2000   Do  mergers  and  alliances  influence  European  shipping  and  port  competition?   21  

Slack  &  Frémont   2005   Transformation  of  Port  Terminal  Operations:  From  the  Local  to  the  Global   14  
Category  2:  

Peters   2001   Developments  in  Global  Seatrade  and  Container  Shipping  Markets:  Their  Effects   14  
on  the  Port  Industry  and  Private  Sector  Involvement  
Notteboom   2004   Container  Shipping  And  Ports:  An  Overview   9  

De  Souza  Jn.  et  al   2003   Liner  Shipping  Companies  and  Terminal  Operators:  Internationalisation  or   7  
Globalisation?  
McCalla   1999   Global  change,  local  pain:  intermodal  seaport  terminals  and  their  service  areas   7  

Notteboom  &   2001   Structural  changes  in  logistics:  how  will  port  authorities  face  the  challenge?   37  
Winkelmans    
Heaver  et  al   2001   Co-­‐operation  and  competition  in  international  container  transport:  strategies   16  
for  ports  
Juhel   2001   Globalisation,  Privatisation  and  Restructuring  of  Ports   14  
Port  Governance  

Notteboom  &   2001   Reassessing  Public  Sector  Involvement  in   14  

Category  3:  

Winkelmans   European  Seaports  

Paixao  &  Marlow   2003   Fourth  generation  ports:  a  question  of  agility?   12  

Saudry  &  Turnbull   1997   Private  profit,  public  loss:  The  financial  and  economic  performance  of  U.K.  ports   11  

Cullinane  &  Song   2002   Port  privatization  policy  and  practice   10  

Hoffmann   2001   Latin  American  Ports:  Results  and  Determinants  of  Private  Sector  Participation   10  

Baird   2000   Port  privatisation:  Objectives,  Extent,  Process,  and  the  UK  Experience   10  

Suykens  &  Van  de   1998   A  quarter  of  a  century  of  port  management  in  Europe:  objectives  and  tools   16  
Port  Planning  and  Development  

Voorde  
Wang  J.   1998   A  container  load  center  with  a  developing  hinterland:  A  case  study  of  Hong   15  
Kong  
Category  4:  

Haynes  et  al   1997   Regional  port  dynamics  in  the  global  economy:  the  case  of  Kashsiung  Taiwan   12  

Sanchez  et  al   2003   Port  Efficiency  and  International  Trade:  Port  Efficiency  as  a  Determinant  of   10  
Maritime  Transport  Costs  
Helling  &  Poister   2000   U.S.  Maritime  Ports:  Trends,  Policy  Implications,  and  Research  Needs   8  

Wang  &  Slack   2000   The  evolution  of  a  regional  container  port  system:   7  

5  
 
  

the  Pearl  River  Delta  

Suykens  &  Van  de   2002   Competition,  Excess  Capacity,  and  the  Pricing  of  Port  Infrastructure   17  
Category  5:  Port  policy  &  

Voorde  
Notteboom   2002   Consolidation  and  contestability  in  the  European  container  handling  industry   17  
regulation  

Haralambides  et  al   2001   Port  Financing  and  pricing  in  the  European  Union:  Theory,  politics  and  Reality   15  

Flor  &  Defilippi   2003   Port  Infrastructure:  An  Access  Model  for  the  Essential  Facility   7  

Kent  &  Ashar   2001   Port  Competition  Regulation:  A  Tool  for  Monitoring  for  Anti-­‐Competitive   6  
Behaviour  
Martinez-­‐Budria  et  al   1999   A  study  of  the  efficiency  of  Spanish  port  authorities  using  Data  Envelopment   19  
Analysis  
Coto-­‐Millan  et  al   2000   Economic  efficiency  in  Spanish  ports:  some  empirical  evidence   15  
Category  6:    Port  Competition  &  

Lirn,  et  al   2004   An  Application  of  AHP  on  Transshipment  Port  Selection:  A  Global  Perspective   13  
Competitiveness  

Malchow  &  Kanafani   2001   A  disaggregate  analysis  of  factors  influencing  port  selection   12  

Fleming  &  Baird   1999   Some  reflections  on  port  competition  in  the  United  States  and  western  Europe   12  

Song  &  Yeo       2004   A  Competitive  Analysis  of  Chinese  Container  Ports  Using  the  Analytic  Hierarchy   11  
Process  
Tiwari  et  al   2003   Shippers’  Port  and  Carrier  Selection  Behaviour  in  China:  A  Discrete  Choice   11  
Analysis  
Song     2003   Port  co-­‐opetition  in  concept  and  practice   10  
Notteboom  &   2005   Port  regionalization:  towards  a  new  phase   15  
Rodrigue   in  port  development  
analysis  of  seaports  
Category  7:  Spatial  

Notteboom   1997   Concentration  and  load  centre  development  in  the  European  container  port   13  
system  
Van  Klink  &  Van  de   1998   Gateways  and  intermodalism   12  
Berg  
Fleming   1997   World  container  port  rankings   7  
Luo  &  Grigalunas   2003   A  Spatial-­‐Economic  Multimodal  Transportation  Simulation  Model  For  US  Coastal   6  
Container  Ports  
 

The   period   1997-­‐2008   is   characterised   by   a   wealth   of   port   studies   that   builds   on   contributions   in  
preceding  decades  (such  as  the  work  by  Richard  Goss  (1990)  on  port  authorities).  We  refer  the  reader  to  
Suykens  and  Van  de  Voorde  (1998)  for  a  review  of  a  quarter  of  a  century  of  academic  publications  in  the  
field   of   port   management   in   Europe,   and   Heaver   (2006)   for   a   review   of   port   economics   with   several  
references  to  papers  published  before  1997.  

6  
 
  

2. CONTENT  SURVEY    

2.1 Terminal  studies  

Methodologies  for  performance  measurement  of  seaport  terminals  and  strategies  of  Terminal  Operating  
Companies  (TOCs)  are  centre  stage  in  this  category.  This  category  counts  only  40  papers  -­‐  excluding  the  
abundant  literature  in  the  field  of  operations  research  (OR)  applied  to  terminal  operations.4    

Most   papers   in   this   category   discuss   terminal   performance,   i.e.   efficiency   and   productivity   issues.   In  
general,   a   container   terminal   (CT)   is   considered   efficient   or   highly   productive   if   it   is   able   to   produce   a  
maximum  output  for  given  inputs,  or  uses  minimal  inputs  for  the  production  of  a  given  output.    

Early  studies  on  CT  efficiency  primarily  focused  on  partial  productivity  measures  (e.g.  vessel  turnaround  
time,  crane  or  yard  productivity).  Later  research  endorsed  more  comprehensive  methods  to  examine  the  
overall   terminal   efficiency.5   An   impressive   stream   of   papers   use   Data   Envelopment   Analysis   (DEA)   and  
Stochastic  Frontier   models  (SFM)   to   measure  overall  terminal  efficiency:   six  of   the  most  cited  terminal  
studies  (Table  3)  deploy  such  techniques.  

Notteboom  et  al  (2000)  introduced  a  Bayesian  approach  to  SFM  with  an  application  to  terminals  in  36  
European   container   ports6.   DEA   remains   the   most   widely   applied   method   to   measure   terminal  
efficiency.7  Early  DEA  applications  include  Tongzon  (2001)  and  Cullinane  et  al  (2002).  Turner  et  al  (2004)  
use   DEA   to   measure   terminal   productivity   growth,   along   with   a   Tobit   regression   to   examine   the  
determinants   of   infrastructure   productivity.   Their   analysis   reveals   the   relationship   between   ports   and  
the   rail   industry   as   a   key   determinant.   Wang   &   Cullinane   (2006)   use   DEA   to   measure   efficiency   and   scale  
economies   in   container   terminals,   concluding   that   large   terminals   are   in   general   more   efficient,   whereas  
Cullinane   et   al   (2004)   apply   DEA   Windows   Analysis   to   container   port   production   efficiency   (other   DEA  
applications:  Itoh  2002;  Cullinane  &  Wang  2006;  Ramos  &  Macada,  2006;  Lin  &  Tseng,  2008).    

                                                                                                                       
4
  For   an   extensive   overview   of   conceptual   and   practically   oriented   papers   on   the   optimizations   of   logistic  
operations  at  port  container  terminals,  we  refer  to  the  work  of  Stahlbock  &  Voss  (2008).  They  identified  nearly  200  
papers   dealing   with   the   application   of   OR-­‐techniques   to   container   terminal   planning   and   optimization.   Much  
discussed   topics   in   operations   research   include   berth   allocation,   stowage   planning,   crane   assignment,   crane   split  
(e.g.  dual  hoist  systems),  storage  and  stacking  logistics  and  landside  gate  operations  (also:  Steenken  et  al,  2004).  
5
 In  the  mid  1990s,  Tongzon  (1995)  applied  factor  analysis  to  assess  the  efficiency  of  leading  container  terminals,  
but  according  to  Ashar  (1995)  with  little  success.  
6
 A  study  using  the  SFM  method  conducted  by  Song  and  Cullinane  (1999)  that  was  published  in  a  publication   of  the  
Eastern  Asia  Transport  Society  containing  the  papers  presented  at  the  3rd  Conference  of  EASTS.  The  paper  is  not  
included  in  the  database,  as  it  was  not  published  in  an  academic  journal.  
7
  Hayuth   &   Roll   (1993)   were   the   first   to   introduce   DEA   for   comparing   port   performance,   but   it   took   some   years  
before  other  scholars  picked  up  the  technique.

7  
 
  

Cullinane  et  al  (2005)  link  DEA  with  privatization.  Tongzon  &  Heng  (2005)  apply  SFM  to  demonstrate  that  
private  sector  participation  can  improve  port  operation  efficiency.  Gonzalez  &  Trujillo  (2008)  look  at  the  
relationship   between   institutional   (re)forms   in   Spain   and   terminal   efficiency   using   a   translog   distance  
function   (also   used   in:   Rodríguez-­‐Álvarez   et   al   2007).   Cullinane   et   al,   (2006)   make   a   comparative   analysis  
using   DEA   and   SFM.   Using   disaggregated   data,   Cochrane   (2008)   demonstrates   that   different   market  
characteristics   can   have   a   significant   effect   on   the   throughput   of   terminals   managed   and   operated   at  
similar   levels   of   efficiency.   He   concludes   that   output   measures   should   be   disaggregated   into   separate  
components.    

Other   approaches   are   also   applied   to   terminal   efficiency.   Basan   (2007)   introduces   four   performance  
measures   as   a   recommended   methodology   to   quantify   the   quality   of   terminal   operations.   Yi   et   al   (2000)  
suggest   a   Container   Terminal   Resource   Management   Center   (CTRMC)   may   lead   to   savings   in   operational  
and   investment   costs   and   an   improvement   of   operational   efficiency.   Jula   et   al   (2006)   and   Olivo   et   al  
(2005)   discuss   empty   container   management.   Ballis   et   al   (1997)   examined   operational   efficiency   of  
terminal  handling  systems  for  low  volume  container  terminals.  Chen  (1998)  examines  land  utilization  and  
storage   space   and   compares   land   productivity   achieved   in   Asian,   European   and   North   American  
terminals.  Song  &  Han  (2004)  apply  a  Weighted  Two-­‐Stage  Least  squares  (WTSLS)  econometric  method  
on   simultaneous   equations   to   identify   performance   determinants   of   Asian   container   terminals,   and  
conclude   that   berth   utilization   is   such   determinant.   Choi   et   al   (2003)   apply   ERP   (Enterprise   Resource  
Planning)   principles   to   container   terminal   operating   systems   to   eliminate   redundancy   and   ensure  
integration  of  operational  processes.8    

Musso  et  al  (1999)  discuss  the  optimal  size  of  a  terminal,  concluding  that  terminal  size  increases  result  in  
trade-­‐offs   between   increasing   terminal   costs   and   decreasing   ship   costs.   Terada   (2002)   finds   that   the  
overcapacity   problem   in   Japanese   container   ports   is   caused   by   institutional   factors,   more   specifically  
accounting  systems  of  the  public  port  authorities.    

Researchers   also   assess   the   behaviour   of   TOCs.   Haralambides   et   al   (2002)   analyze   the   implications   of  
dedicated   container   terminals   (DCTs),   usinh   a   queuing   model   to   show   that   DCTs   can   pose   significant  

                                                                                                                       
8
 In  some  studies  of  this  group  (i.e.  Dragovitch,  2006;  Choi  et  al,  2003)  the  dividing  line  between  OR  studies  (not  
included)  and  research  in  economics  and  management  (included)  is  very  thin.  Some  studies  use  OR  techniques  to  
address   economic   issues,   and   are   published   outside   OR-­‐journals,   and   generally   devote   relatively   much   attention   to  
the  implications  for  the  port  industry  (e.g.  Mennis  et  al  2008).    Because  of  this  characteristics,  along  with  the  fact  
that  these  studies  were  not  covered  in  reviews  of  OR  studies  in  the  field  (see:  Stahlbock  &  Voss,  2008)  these  studies  
are  included  in  our  database.  

8  
 
  

barriers  to  entry  in  liner  shipping.  Olivier  (2005)  uses  a  multi-­‐layered  network  framework  to  analyse  the  
inter-­‐firm   partnerships   involving   ocean   carriers   and   International   Terminal   Operators   (ITOs)   and   links  
entry  of  private  firms  to  the  emerging  partnerships  in  the  container  terminal  industry  in  Asia.  Olivier  et  al  
(2007)  expand  this  work  discussing  the  emergence  of  transnational  corporations  (TNCs)  in  the  terminal  
industry.   Their   paper   links   the   entry   of   TNCs   in   foreign   markets   to   the   institutional   setting   in   these  
markets.  Airriess  (2001)  zooms  in  on  Hutchison  Port  Holdings’  dominance  in  mainland  China.    

Few   terminal   studies   address   financial   and   pricing   issues.   Veenstra   &   Lang   (2004)   develop   a   model  
allowing  the  economic  evaluation  of  a  terminal  in  terms  of  cash  flow  generated,  as  a  tool  for  assessing  
operational  and  financial  strategies,  such  as  dynamic  pricing.  Jara-­‐Diaz  et  al  (2005)  analyze  the  operation  
of  cargo  handling  firms  through  a  multioutput  cost  model  that  calculates  product-­‐specific  marginal  costs,  
economies  of  scale  and  scope,  and  identifies  optimal  pricing  policies  and  the  potential  cost  advantages  of  
increasing   production.   Kim   &   Kim   (2007)   develop   a   method   for   the   optimal   price   schedule   for   storing  
inbound   containers   in   a   container   yard.   Other   terminal   evaluations   focus   on   planning   methods  
(Goodchild   &   Daganzo,   2007),   the   use   of   modelling   (Laik   &   Hadjiconstantinou   2008)   and   the  
measurement  of  facilities  utilisation  (Wiegmans,  et  al,  2004).    

 
Table  4.  Terminal  Studies:  Widely  used  Approaches  
Themes   Details  
Terminal  efficiency     Overall  efficiency:  mainly  based  on  Data  Envelopment  Analysis  (DEA)  and  
Stochastic  Frontier  Models  (SFM)  
Partial  efficiency  measures  
Markov  Theory  
Translog  distance  function  
Principal  component  analysis  
Link  between  efficiency  and  governance  models/port  reform  
Impact  of  market  differences  on  efficiency  
Terminal  capacity  and  size   Land  utilization  
Optimal  size  of  a  terminal  on  the  basis  of  generalized  costs  
Link  between  capacity  and  TOC  strategy  
Link  between  (over)capacity  and  port  governance  model/policy  
Terminal  capacity  and  inter-­‐terminal  competition  
Strategies  of  terminal  operating   TOCs  and  dedicated  terminals  
companies  (TOC)   Internationalisation  of  TOCs  
Market  entry/market  barriers  for  TOCs  
Optimization  of  terminal   Techniques  from  operations  research  (OR)  
operations  *   Enterprise  Resource  Planning  (ERP)  
*  These  papers  are  excluded  from  the  list  of  the  reviewed  port  papers;  for  a  detailed  review  of  OR  studies  see:  
Stahlbock  &  Voss  (2008);  Steenken  et  al  (2004).  

9  
 
  

 
Although  terminal  studies  are  well  developed  (Table  4),  research  challenges  remain.  First,  the  literature  
is   focused   on   container   terminals   (one   of   the   exceptions   is   Mattfeld   &   Kopfer   (2003)   on   the  
Bremerhaven   vehicle   transhipment   hub   terminal).   More   attention   to   other   types   of   terminals   (ro-­‐ro,  
LNG,  dry  bulk)  would  be  valuable,  given  mounting  challenges  for  many  of  these  terminals.9    

Secondly,  papers  on  DEA  and  SFM  are  plentiful,  but  further  methodological  advances  in  the  field  of  (1)  
the   measurement   of   the   relevant   production   factors   (e.g.   labour),   (2)   actor   specific   approaches   to  
efficiency  measurement  (e.g.  operators  and  shipping  lines  may  define  efficiency  differently),  and  (3)  the  
comparability  of  terminals,  are  feasible.  More  insights  in  the  actual  use  of  efficiency  scores  by  terminal  
operators  and  policy  makers  would  be  welcomed.  The  combination  of  efficiency  measurement  and  port  
governance,   including   terminal   concession   practices   and   conditions,   is   another   important   research  
challenge.    

Thirdly,   terminal   efficiency   and   capacity   are   mostly   approached   in   isolation   from   broader   supply   chain  
(SC)  dynamics.  A  step  forward  is  to  embed  terminal  studies  in  mainstream  SC  literature,  for  example  by  
analysing   how   terminals   can   contribute   to   SC   efficiency,   and   how   SC   practices   impact   terminal  
operations.   Relevant   sub-­‐topics   include   terminal   network   design   by   TOCs,   dwell   times   and   related  
charging   policies   and   the   complementarity   between   deep-­‐sea   and   inland   terminals   in   view   of  
accommodating  SC.    

Fourthly,  the  role  of  port  labour  in  terminal  operations  remains  under-­‐researched.  The  path  of  Ghosh  &  
De   (2000),   who   looked   at   labour   endowment   and   port   performance   indicators,   can   be   expanded  
considerably.    

 
2.2 Ports  in  Transport  and  Supply  Chains    

Fifty-­‐six   contributions   deal   with   the   role   of   ports   in   transport   and   supply   chains   (SC),   with   remarkable  
growth  since  2007.  The  main  topics  relate  to  shipping  (networks)  and  its  implications  for  ports;  SC  trends  
and  their  implications  for  ports  and  Port  Authorities  (PAs);  logistics  activities  in  seaports;  and  information  
flows  in  SC  and  their  impact  on  ports  and  hinterland  logistics.  

                                                                                                                       
9
 We  refer  in  this  respect  for  example  to  capacity  issues  in  export-­‐based  coal  and  iron  ore  terminals  in  Australia  and  
Brazil,  the  rapid  growth  of  new  LNG  terminals  around  the  world  or  the  land  use  dilemma  at  car  terminals.  

10  
 
  

The   changing   role   of   ports   in   SC   has   received   attention   in   Peters   (2001)   and   Carbone   &   de   Martino  
(2003).   Bichou   &   Gray   (2005)   refer   to   the   wide   variety   of   operational,   organisational   and   strategic  
management  approaches  to  port  systems.    

Notteboom,  (2004)  examines  the  implications  of  logistics  developments  for  liner  shipping  and  ports,  with  
operators   seeking   higher   margins   and   increased   customer   satisfaction   through   increases   in   vessel   size,  
co-­‐operation,   mergers,   acquisitions,   development   of   landside   logistics   services,   rationalizing   hub-­‐and-­‐
spoke  network  and  a  global  coverage  (also:  Vigarié  1999).  Slack  &  Frémont  (2005)  analyze  how  changes  
in  the  logistics  industry  induced  the  transformation  of  terminal  operations  from  local  to  global.  Midoro  
et   al   (2005),   De   Souza   et   al   (2003),   Bichou   &   Bell   (2007),   Parola   &   Musso   (2007),   Wiegmans  et   al   (2008),  
Parola   &   Veenstra   (2008),   and   Vanelslander   (2008)   analyze   changes   in   the   liner   shipping   and   terminal  
industry.   Heaver   et   al   (2000)   elaborate   on   the   implications   of   such   changes   for   port   competition.   Zan  
(1999)   uses   game   theory   to   simulate   the   flow   of   foreign   trade   container   cargo,   providing   a   dynamic  
method  for  market  analysis.    

In   line   with   Slack’s   (1994)   ‘pawns   in   the   game’   approach,   Sletmo   (1999)   underlines   that   due   to  
containerization   and   SC   restructuring,   ports   have   lost   their   role   as   dominant   players   in   multimodal  
systems.   In   one   of   the   most   cited   port   studies,   Robinson   (2002)   argues   that   with   the   rapid   and   pervasive  
restructuring  of  SC  in  which  ports  are  embedded,  existing  paradigms  no  longer  offer  adequate  insights  
into  the  functions  of  ports  or  PAs.  Ports  are  elements  in  value-­‐driven  chain  systems  and  should  deliver  
value   to   shippers   and   third-­‐party   service   providers.   Mangan   et   al   (2008)   examine   the   role   of   ports   in  
logistics   and   SC   management,   with   a   particular   focus   on   the   concept   of   port-­‐centric   logistics,   while  
Jacobs  &  Hall  (2007)  provide  a  case-­‐study  on  the  SC  strategy  of  the  port  of  Dubai,  and  Ferrari  et  al  (2006)  
discuss  the  spatial  distribution  of  European  Distribution  Centres.    

Scholars   stress   the   importance   of   agility,   which   involves   being   proactive   along   SC,   facilitation   of  
intermodal   integration,   as   well   as   organizational   integration   and   partnership   between   ports   and   port  
users.   Wiegmans   et   al   (2001)   address   marketing   channel   flows,   while   Lee   et   al   (2003)   simulates   the  
logistics  planning  of  a  container  terminal.  The  purposes  served  are  the  modelling  of  a  SC  network  and  the  
evaluation   of   SC   performance   based   on   proposed   strategies.   Roh   et   al   (2007)   use   ‘Structured   Analysis  
and  Design  Technique’  (SADT)  to  analyse  how  interrelationships  between  companies  in  the  port  cluster  
evolve  and  how  they  engage  in  the  port  logistics  process.  

SC   practices   result   in   growing   volumes   and   mounting   pressures   on   port   regions   and   inland   transport  
systems   in   terms   of   land   management,   infrastructure   capacity   and   environmental   impacts   (McCalla,  

11  
 
  

1999;  Hesse,  2006).  Solutions  to  congestion  and  environmental  issues  in  Californian  ports  have  received  
particular   attention   (Regan   &   Golob,   2000,   Giuliano   &   O’Brien,   2007;   Rahimi   et   al,   2008).   Robinson  
(2006)  develops  a  strategic  framework  on  port-­‐oriented  landside  logistics  in  Australian  ports,  observing  
that  freight  systems  might  be  confronted  with  policy  vacuums.    

Many   ports   rely   on   rail   corridors   and   inland   ports   to   cope   with   volume   growth   and   the   imperatives   of  
global  SC.  Gouvernal  &  Daydou  (2005)  and  Woodburn  (2007)  describe  how  the  North-­‐West  European  rail  
freight   industry   adapts   to   changing   markets.   Konings   (2007)   addresses   the   logistics   need   for  
improvement  of  container  barge  transport  and  handling  in  Rotterdam,  while  De  Langen  (2007)  presents  
a  study  of  port  selection  in  contestable  hinterland.  Vernimmen  et  al  (2007)  analyse  how  SCs  are  affected  
by   schedule   unreliability   in   liner   shipping.   Notteboom   &   Rodrigue   (2008)   discuss   adjustments   of  
transport   networks   at   three   geographical   scales:   (a)   the   continental   (e.g.   high-­‐capacity   long-­‐distance  
corridors);  (b)  the  regional  (e.g.  modal  shift  strategies);  and  (c)  the  local  level  (e.g.  on-­‐dock  rail  or  barge  
facilities  to  a  nearby  inland  terminal).    

The   renewed   role   of   inland   ports   in   a   seaport’s   logistics   strategy   is   gaining   attention.   Walter   &   Poist  
(2004)  analyze  shipper  preferences  in  setting  up  inland  ports  in  North  America.  Roso  (2008)  looks  at  the  
factors   influencing   the   implementation   of   dry   ports.   Rahimi  et   al   (2008)   develop   an   inland   port   location-­‐
allocation  model  for  regional  intermodal  flows.    

The   quality   of   hinterland   access   depends   on   the   behaviour   of   shipping   lines,   terminal   operators,  
forwarders,   PAs,   and   national/regional   government.   Thus,   recent   studies   analyse   how   market   players  
and  PAs  develop  collective  action.  De  Langen  &  Chouly  (2004)  introduce  the    ‘hinterland  access  regime’  
concept  and  analyse  it  in  three  port  clusters.  Van  der  Horst  &  De  Langen  (2008)  take  the  coordination  
problem  in  hinterland  transport  chains  a  step  further  by  indentifying  different  arrangements  to  improve  
coordination  in  hinterlands  transport  chains.    

Port   studies   also   examine   the   regional   implications   of   global   maritime   integration   (Lee   and   Rodrigue  
2006;   Lee   et   al,   2006,   Ducruet   2008).   Wang   &   Cullinane   (2008)   generate   estimates   of   container   port  
accessibility   using   the   principal   eigenvector   method.   The   role   of   Mediterranean   ports   in   global   liner  
networks   and   the   development   of   transhipment   hubs   in   the   region   received   quite   some   attention  
(Ridolfi,  1999;  Zohil  and   Prion,   1999;   Gouvernal   et   al,   2005).   Baird   (2002)   discusses   the   optimal   design   of  
liner  service  networks  in  Northern  European  ports.    

12  
 
  

A  last  topic  of  interest  relates  to  the  role  of  information  technology  in  facilitating  further  integration  of  
ports   in   SC,   with   the   role   of   actors   in   setting   up   port   information   systems   (Paik   &   Bagchi,   2000;   Bagchi   &  
Paik,  2001)  and  the  role  of  information  technologies  in  the  logistics  competitiveness  of  a  port/terminal  
(Airriess,  2001;  Kia  et  al,  2000;  Lambrou  et  al,  2008)  being  studied.  

Scholars  thus  devote  an  increasing  number  of  studies  to  the  role  of  ports  in  transport  and  SC  (Table  5).  
This  research  stream  fits  into  a  wider  movement  to  focus  on  value  chains  and  SC,  instead  of  specific  parts  
of  these  chains.    

 
 Table  5.  Studies  on  ports  in  transport  and  supply  chains:  Widely  used  Approaches  

Themes   Details  
Theorising  the  role  of  ports  in  supply   Ports  as  elements  in  value-­‐driven    chain  system  
chains     Core-­‐periphery  model  
Changing  logistics  strategies  of   Market  consolidation  and  its  impact  on  port  competition  
terminal  operators  and  shipping   The  place  of  terminals  in  vertical  integration  strategies  
lines  and  its  impact  on  ports   Market  power  of  port  authorities  
The  role  of  seaport  terminals     Pricing  strategies  of  TOC  
Logistics  parks  near  terminals  
Hinterland  access  and  supply  chains   Hinterland  access  regimes  
Coordination  problems  among  actors  
Role  of  inland  ports  
Role  of  freight  corridors  
Local  pressures  on  ports     Environmental  impacts  
Road  congestion  and  solutions  
Supply  chains  and  liner  service   Hub-­‐and-­‐spoke  versus  direct  calls  
networks   Link  between  liner  service  design  and  the  nature  of  distribution  
networks  
Schedule  unreliability  
The  role  of  information  technology   Port  information/community  systems  
 
Notwithstanding  the  progress  made,  important  research  challenges  remain.  First,  the  diverging  logistics  
requirements  that  different  types  of  containerised  goods  might  have  is  hardly  addressed.  The  study  of  
Hall   &   Olivier   (2005)   on   the   automotive   industry   and   its   market   players   (car   carriers   and   automobile  
importers)   demonstrates   the   value   of   such   studies.   A   commodity-­‐wise   approach   of   cargo   flows   and  
strategies  to  fulfil  the  logistics  needs  of  specific  commodities  would  be  a  step  forward.    

Secondly,  the  literature  on  ports  and  SC  is  mainly  descriptive.  Measures  and  methods  to  analyse  the  role  
of  ports  in  SC  are  needed.  The  work  of  Song  &  Panayides  (2008)  and  Panayides  &  Song  (2008),  on  the  
conceptualisation   and   empirical   evidence   of   port/terminal   integration   in   SC,   deserves   further  

13  
 
  

elaboration,   for   instance   with   respect   to   the   measurement   of   SC   integration   and   its   implications   on  
performance.  

2.3 Port  Governance  

Several   developments   challenge   conventional   public   government   led   port   governance   structures,  
capturing  research  interest  for  new  port  governance  models.  Port  governance  studies  initially  focused  on  
the   potential   of   governance   reforms   for   improving   port   operations   but   increasingly   also   address   the  
outcome  of  these  port  reforms.    

Early   studies   describe   reform   processes   in   specific   countries.   As   new   public   management   philosophy  
swept  the  world,  reform  critiques  and  policy  suggestions  appeared  frequently  in  the  period  1997-­‐2001  
(Ircha,   1997;   Misztal   &   Zurek   1997;   Everett   &   Robinson,   1998;   Mangan   &   Furlong,   1998;   Shashikumar,  
1998;  Goulielmos,  1999;  Cullinane  &  Song,  1998;  Shin,  2000;  Hadi  Baaj  &  Issa,  2001,  Llacer,  2006).  Since  
the   early   2000s,   research   concentrates   on   theoretical   arguments   (Table   3).   One   of   the   latter   is   Juhel’s  
(2001)   review   of   the   implications   of   globalization   on   the   distribution   of   roles   between   public   and   private  
actors.   Paixao   &   Marlow   (2003)   criticize   UNCTAD’s   ‘port   generation   model’   suggesting   an   ‘agile   fourth  
generation’  model  (see  also  Beresford  et  al,  2004)  

Other   leading   studies   combine   conceptualisation   and   empirical   research.   Notteboom   &   Winkelmans  
(2001b)   reassess   the   public   sector’s   involvement   in   European   ports.   Cullinane   &   Song   (2002)   conclude  
that  tailored  privatization  policies  are  essential.  Baird  (2000)  creates  a  Port  Privatization  Matrix  based  on  
the  objectives,  extent,  process  of  port  privatization,  and  reviews  the  UK  experience.  Saundry  &  Turnbull  
(1997)  conclude  that  the  British  case,  a  unique  case  as  the  only  country  where  port  companies  were  fully  
privatised,  resulted  in  ‘private  profit,  public  loss’.  

The   few   studies   that   compare   global   or   regional   samples   are   influential.   Baird   (2002)   examines   the  
privatisation   in   the   world’s   top-­‐100   container   ports;   Hoffmann   (2001)   compares   the   results   and  
determinants   of   private   sector   participation   in   Latin   America.   Cullinane   &   Song   (2001)   study   the  
administrative  and  ownership  structure  of  Asian  container  ports  (also:  Ircha,  2001b).  

The   2000s   brought   an   increasing   number   of   studies   evaluating   specific   country-­‐level   port   governance  
policies  d.  These  either  assess  results  in  general  economic  terms  (Haralambides  &  Behrens,  2000;  Dion  et  
al,   2002;   Kim   et   al,   2007;   Serebrisky   &   Trujillo,   2005;   Castillo–Manzano   et   al,   2008;   Pardali,   2008;   Qiu,  
2008),   or   assess   port   legislation     (e.g.   Everett   (2003;   2007;   Everett   &   Pettitt,   2006),   organisational  

14  
 
  

behaviour   (Ircha,   2001a);   and   financial   performance   of   (partly)   privatised   port   companies   (Pallis   &  
Syriopoulos,  2007).10    

Labour   issues   generated   interest   in   recent   years.   The   foci   includes   the   impact   of   deregulation   on  
dockers’   earnings   (Talley,   2004);   the   regulatory   and   ‘contractual   insecurity’   in   conditions   of   globalisation  
(Saundry   &   Turnbull,   1999);   the   effects   of   port   lockouts   due   to   failing   negotiations   (Farris,   2008);   and  
dockworkers   unions   bargaining   power   in   US   (Talley,   2002),   Europe   (e.g.   Turnbull   &   Sapsford,   2001;  
Barton  &  Turnbull,  2002;  Turnbull,  2006)  or  globally  (Turnbull  &  Wass,  2007).  Recent  is  also  the  interest  
in  the  role  of  technological  changes  (Schwarz-­‐Miller  &  Talley,  2002)  and  ways  to  enhance  port  training  
and  education  (Ircha  &  Balsom,  2005;  De  Langen,  2008).  

Another   core   research   theme   is   the   role   of   PAs.   Brooks   (2004)   demonstrates   the   problems   of   existing  
frameworks  (either  Baird,  2001  or  the  World  Bank  Port  Reform  Toolkit)  to  understand  the  management  
of  port  activities  (see  also  Baltazar  and  Brooks,  2001).  The  public  good  theory  has  been  used  to  explore  
the   pros   and   the   cons   of   public   private   partnerships   (Vining   &   Boardman,   2008),   and   is   implicit   in   the  
study  of  Chlomoudis  et  al  (2003),  where  the  role  of  PAs  in  shaping  ‘worlds  of  production’  is  centre  stage.  
Given   the   lack   of   theoretical   clarity,   Brooks   &   Pallis   (2008)   suggest   the   development   of   coherent  
performance  measurement.    

In  the  most  influential  study  of  this  category,  Notteboom  &  Winkelmans  (2001a)  examine  paths  for  PAs  
to  effectively  face  the  challenges  posed  by  the  structural  changes  in  logistics.  In  a  port  strategy  approach,  
the   scholars   suggest   that   the   PAs   scope   should   go   beyond   that   of   a   traditional   landlord,   towards   an  
active   engagement   in   the   development   of   port   related   Value   Added   Logistics   activities,   information  
systems  and  intermodality.    

This  debate  is  linked  with  the  coordination  between  firms  in  a  port,  e.g.,  a  container  terminal  community  
(Martin   &   Thomas   2001;   Cullinane   &   Song,   2001).   Adding   a   theoretical   dimension,   De   Langen   (2004)  
conceptualises   seaports   as   ‘clusters   of   economic   activities’   and   uses   the   theory   of   collective   action   to  
examine  cluster  coordination,  and  assess  empirically  the  quality  of  collective  action  regimes  (De  Langen  
&  Visser,  2005)  –  a  research  linked  with  the  PAs  role  in  hinterland  coordination  (Category  2).  Heaver  et  al  
(2001)  discuss   strategies   to  achieve  port  co-­‐operation   just   as  De  Martino  &  Morvillo  (2008)   and   Yap  &  
Lam  (2004).  

                                                                                                                       
10
 This  debate  is  associated  with  research  on  port  performance:  see  the  analysis  of  Category  6.  

15  
 
  

A  final  theme  addresses  the  interrelations  between  port  governance  and  the  internationalisation  of  the  
port  industry.  Wang  et  al  (2004)  analyse  Chinese  port  governance  in  a  multidisciplinary  way  (economic,  
political,   sociological),   whereas   Jacobs   (2007)   focuses   on   the   implications   of   institutional   factors   on  
internationalisation.   Other   institutional   perspectives   examine   pressures   to/from   regional   governance  
(Wang   &   Slack,   2004),   the   environment   (Burroughs,   2005),   and   PAs   corporate   social   responsibility  
(Grewal  &  Darlow,  2007).  

 
Table  6.  Port  Governance  Studies:  Widely  used  Approaches  
Themes   Details  
Theorising  the  Context  of   Globalisation;  port  models  (generations;  combine  conceptualisations  
Governance     and  empirical  research)  
Comparative  analysis  of  port   Global  or  regional  samples  
governance  models  
Port  governance  reforms  at  a   Evaluation  of  the  results  (general  economic  terms;  specific  (legislative,  
national  scale  -­‐  results   financial)  terms;  focus  on  bigger  (container)  ports)  
Port  governance  reforms  at  a   Descriptive  analysis  (pre-­‐reform  and  on-­‐going  reform  critiques,  policy  
national  scale  -­‐  potential   suggestions)  
Industrial  Relations  in  ports   Impact  of  deregulation  on  port  labour;  trade  unions  power;  education  
&  training  
The  role  of  PAs  in  contemporary   Strategy  &  management  theories;  theories  of  public  goods  
port  governance.  
The  port  community,  cooperation   Cluster  theories;  theories  of  collective  action.    
in  seaports  
Governance  through  Cooperation   Strategies;  resources  and  inter-­‐organizational  relationships  
between  seaports  
Institutional  issues   Multidisciplinary  studies;  institutionalism;  governance  concepts;  
Corporate  social  responsibility  
 

Port   governance   studies   have   developed   well   beyond   the   initial,   localised,   descriptive   studies   of  
governance   reforms.   Remaining   challenges   include   the   broadening   the   scope   of   ports   studied   with   more  
attention  for  secondary  ports  (see  Debrie  et  al,  2007)  as  well  as  port  systems  (e.g.  ports  located  in  the  
same   region   or   country.   Furthermore,   environmental   issues   need   to   be   integrated   in   port   governance  
research,  while  labour  reorganisation  deserves  more  attention.  Foremost,  new  theoretical  insights  need  
to   allow   comprehensive   assessments   of   port   governance.   Towards   this   end,   it   would   be   useful   to   take  
stock  of  studies  in  other  industries  including  infrastructure  (e.g.  airports)  and  utilities.      

16  
 
  

2.4 Port  Planning  and  Development  

Suykens   &   van   de   Voorde   (1998)   review   the   objectives   and   tools   for   port   management   used   from   the  
1970s  till  early  1990s.  Helling  &  Poister  (2000)  argue  that  one  of  the  port  development  problems  is  the  
fact   that   benefits   are   increasingly   dispersed   while   their   adverse   impacts   remain   localized.   De   Langen  
(2005)   identifies   trends   and   challenges   for   seaports   (also:   Maloni   &   Jackson,   2005a)   and   Moglia   &  
Sanguineri  (2003)  discuss  the  need  for  new  approaches  to  port  planning.    

The   above   broad   overviews   are   complemented   by   detailed,   mostly   descriptive   port   planning   case  
studies.   The   most   widely   cited   are   Wang’s   (1998)   analysis   of   Hong   Kong   that   shows   the   relevance   of  
understanding   hinterland   networks   of   ports,   Baird’s   (1999).analysis   of   private   sector   driven   port  
development   in   Felixstowe   and   the   study   of   Haynes   et   al   (1997)   on   Kaoshiung,   that   shows   that   the  
traditional   approach   of   providing   port   land   and   expect   development   to   take   place   is   not   sufficient   to  
ensure  prospective  port  development  (also:  De  &  Ghosh,  2002).    

Scholars   have   started   to   re-­‐think   the   port   (Olivier   et   al,   2006)   and   address   specific   issues,   such   as  
location  (Baird,  1997)  and  size  effects  (e.g.  the  econometric  estimation  of  scale  and  scope  economies  -­‐  
Tovar  et  al,  2007;  Ircha,  2001).  An  extensive  number  of  studies  deal  with  the  interplay  of  international,  
national  and  local  (economic,  political,  geographical)  factors  in  shaping  port  development  (Hoyle  1999;  
Todd,   1997;   Comtois,   1999;   Marcadon   1999;   Brunt,   2000;   Wang   &   Slack   2000;   Brodin,   2001;   Priemus,  
2001;   Loo   &   Hook,   2002;   Wood,   2004;   Paul,   2005;   Wood   &   Dibben   2005;   Grossmann,   2008).   The  
majority  of  these  studies  analyses  container  ports.    

The   growth   and   resulting   congestion   in   the   container   segment   spurred   research   in   container   port  
capacity   (Maloni   &   Jackson,   2005b),   expansion   strategies   (Dekker   &   Verhaege,   2008);   optimal  
investment   priorities   (Koh,   2001;   Wiegmans   et   al,   2002)   and   risk   management   in   large   physical  
infrastructure   investments   (Ho   &   Ho,   2006).   Studies   also   include   frontier   cost   approach   applications  
(Barros,   2003),   discuss   growth   incentives   for   PAs   (Barros,   2005)   and   growth   related   quality   assurance  
practices  of  PAs  (López  &  Poole,  1998)  

On  top  of  the  more  general  studies,  three  key  topics  are  identified:  (1)  forecasting,  (2)  economic  impact  
of  ports  and  (3)  planning  and  awarding  of  terminals.  Although  forecasting  demand  would  be  a  powerful  
tool   for   governments,   PAs,   TOCs   and   port   users,   relevant   scientific   research   is   limited.     Fung   (2001)  
created  a  container  throughput  forecast  model,  by  studying  various  interactive  relations  between  major  
ports  in  East  and  Southeast  Asia.  Further  research  on  this  vital  yet  complex  issue  is  needed,  particularly  

17  
 
  

following  the  2008-­‐2009  crisis,  which  reemphasised  the  impact  of  exogenous  variables  on  the  demand  
for  (trans)port  services.    

Economic   impact   studies   estimate   a   port’s   contribution   to   local,   national   and   regional   development.   The  
input–output  methodology  is  commonly  used  to  estimate  the  regional  economic  impact  of  specific  ports,  
such  as  Tauranga  (Hughes,  1997),  Santander  (Castro  &  Coto  Millan,  1998),  Associated  British  Ports  (Brayn  
et   al,   2006),   Sardinia   (Accario,   2008))   and   cruise   terminals   (Guerrero   et   al,   2008).     Musso   et   al   (2000)  
developed  a  methodology  to  estimate  port  related  employment  through  the  probability  of  relationship  
between  port  related  and  non-­‐related  industries.    

Hall  (2004)  provides  a  critique  of  port  impact  studies.  Motivated  by  the  effects  of  a  2002  lockout  in  the  
US   ports,   he   claims   that   port   impact   studies   do   not   deal   with   (short-­‐run)   substitution   behaviour   (Hall,  
2003),  and  concludes  that  these  studies  are  poorly  designed  to  estimate  the  economic  impacts  of  ports  
on  the  production  and  consumption  of  that  cargo  in  increasingly  dispersed  hinterlands.    

Studies  examining  the  relations  between  port  efficiency,  maritime  costs  and  trade  flows  are  important  
given  that,  due  to  the  reduction  of  trade  barriers,  transport  costs  are  in  many  cases  the  most  substantial  
part  of  total  trade  costs.  Sanchez  et  al  (2003)  illustrate  the  relevance  of  port  costs  for  international  trade  
patterns.   Clark   et   al   (2004)   conclude   that   lower   port   costs   lead   to   higher   trade   volumes.   The   study   of  
infrastructure   development   as   determinant   of   freight   rates   and   trade   costs   (Wilmsmeier   &   Hoffman,  
2008;   Rettab   &   Azzam,   2008)   is   accompanied   by   attempts   to   model   cargo   handling   costs   (Jara-­‐Díaz   et   al,  
2002;  2008;  Diaz-­‐Hernandez  et  al,  2008).    

Decisions  concerning  the  number  of  terminals  to  be  developed  in  a  port  and  methods  to  select  terminal  
operators   are   also   present.   Turner   (2000)   employed   simulation   to   examine   the   impact   of   container  
terminal  leasing  on  seaport  performance  (e.g.  terminal  utilization  and  vessel  in-­‐port  time).  Simulation  is  
also  used  to  study  the  relevant  environment:  Casaca-­‐Paixao  (2005).  

18  
 
  

Table  7.  Port  Planning  and  Development  Studies:  Widely  used  Approaches  
Themes   Details  
Port  Planning     Review  papers  and  detailed  studies  of  developments  at  port  or  at  national  
level;    implications  of  network  integration,  and  technology;  only  few  
forecasting  studies  
Impact  studies   Economic  impact  at  a  local  or  regional  scale;  Input-­‐output  analyses,  though  
criticism  exists;  study  of  the  relation  between  port  efficiency,  maritime  costs  
and  trade  flows.  
Port  development   specific  issues  analyses  (locational;  size;  strategies,  investments);  studies  of  
international,  national  and  local  (economic,  political,  geographical)  factors  in  
shaping  port  development;    some  terminal  development  studies;  Dominance  
of  container  ports  developments    
Tendering  -­‐  Concessions   Understudies  theme  but  expanding  research  interest;  local,  regional  
application;  recent  interest  in  the  theorisation  of  the  economics  and  the  
regulatory  framework  
 

Tendering   and   concessioning   have   only   recently   received   attention.   Defillipi   (2004)   concludes   that   a  
multi-­‐operator   scheme   might   not   be   feasible   without   a   subsidy   (another   developing   countries  
perspective:  Fernandez  et  al,  1999).  Van  Niekerk  (2005)  discusses  the  regulation  needed  (for  a  sectoral  
case   (towage)   licensing:   Ergas   et   al   2004).   Pallis   et   al   (2008)   suggest   that   concession   procedures   may  
create   entry   barriers;   an   issue   associated   with   the   discussion   of   ‘within   port   competition’   and   regulation  
(see:  Category  5).      

Although   general   economics   literature   on   concessions   is   well   developed,   insights   from   established  
theories  have  been  rarely  applied  to  port  terminal  concessions.  Research  on  issues  such  as  the  allocation  
mechanisms   (to   be)   used   for   granting   concessions,   concession   terms   and   fees,   special   clauses   in  
contracts   to   assure   that   the   tenants   act   in   the   interest   of   the   PA   and   the   wider   community,   deserve  
much  more  attention.    

2.5 Port  Policy  and  Regulation  

Port   policy   and   regulatory   issues   –   particularly:   competition,   pricing,   financing,   environmental,   safety  
and  security  related  policy  practices  -­‐  are  the  second  most  popular  themes.  Scholars  examine  these  at  
both  national  and  supranational  levels,  but  research  is  fragmented  (see  Table  3).  

Goss   (1999)   analysis   of   economic   rents   has   been   recently   followed   by   studies   on   market   entry.   A  
common   denominator   is   that   intra-­‐port   competition   is   essential   but   limited   in   many   regions.   Given  
industry   concentration,   Notteboom   (2002)   questions   the   contestability   of   the   European   container  

19  
 
  

handling   industry,   (also:   Atkin   &   Rowlinson,   2000).   Research   on   how   limited   intra-­‐port   competition  
affects  regulatory  practices  (Kent  &  Jochstein,  1998;  Defilippi  &  Florm,  2008)  follows  discussions  on  the  
appropriate   regulation   for   monitoring   anti-­‐competitive   behaviour   (Kent   &   Ashar,   2001).   Other   studies  
use   mainstream   economic   theories   (e.g.   ‘essential   services’)   to   ensure   access   in   specific   port   facilities  
(Flor  &  Defilippi,  2003)  and  conditions  that  lower  entry  barriers  (De  Langen  &  Pallis,  2007).  Relevant  EU  
initiatives  have  also  been  assessed  (Farell,  2001;  Pallis  &  Vaggelas,  2005)    

A   number   of   papers   address   supranational   policies   on   pricing   mechanisms.   Haralambides   et   al   (2001)  

study  the  application  of  full  cost  recovery  pricing,  including  sunk  costs  (also:  Bergantino,  2002;  Gardner  
et  al,  2006).  The  practical  difficulties  associated  with  national-­‐level  policies  regarding  port  fees  definition  
(Psaraftis,  2005a)  and  implementation  (Martinez-­‐Burdia  et  al,  2001),  are  additional  research  themes.  

The  academic  discussions  on  appropriate  pricing  mechanisms  have  not  converged  to  a  broad  concensus  
on  the  optimal  approaches.  Harambides  (2002)  focuses  on  marginal  cost  pricing  of  infrastructure  (also:  
Goss   &   Stevens   2001;   Meersman   et   al,   2003)   as   a   ‘pricing   discipline’   towards   cost   recovery   and   fair  
competition   among   users,   while   Strandenes   &   Marlow   (2000)   question   pricing   decisions   of   public  
authorities  that  operate  in  a  semi-­‐commercial  environment.  Strategic  price  setting  (Ashar,  2001),  the  use  
of   services   differentiation   (Holguin-­‐Veras   &   Diaz,   1999),   cost   sharing   (Bergantino   &   Coppejans,   2000),  
and  a  posteriori  pricing  mechanisms  (Peraz-­‐Labajos  &  Garcia,  2000),  are  also  discussed.    

A   maritime-­‐user   perspective   has   occasionally   been   applied   (Kumar,   2002;   Skalberg,   2007),   just   as   pricing  
schemes   for   slots   (Strandenes,   2004)   and   the   development   implications   of   port   pricing   based   on   the  
particulars  of  a  specific  shipping  market  (e.g.  short-­‐sea  shipping:  Strandenes  &  Marlow,  2000).  

The  issue  of  pricing  is  closely  related  to  port  financing  (Haralambides,  2001).  Public  good  theory  has  been  
applied  to  study  financing  policies  (Baird,  2004),  with  the  issue  of  ‘taxes  versus  user  fees’  to  finance  ports  
remaining   under   consideration   (Talley,   2007).   More   formal   models   (e.g.   duopolistic   port   market   and  
hinterland  congestion,  see  De  Borger  et  al,  2008)  may  lead  to  new  insights.  

Environmental   regulations   have   been   studied   extensively,   but   without   a   coherent   approach.   Scholars  
examine  regulatory  issues  associated  with  particular  problems  (e.g.  dredging:  Gibb,  1997;  or  reception  of  
ship-­‐generated   waste   facilities:   Ball   1999;   Butt,   2007;   De   Langen   &   Nijdam,   2008);   environmentally  
friendly   seaport   development   (Kendra,   1999);   institutional   frameworks   to   Coastal   Zone   Management  
(Hershman,   1999;   Yarnell,   1999);   or   monitoring   and   mapping   effective   environmental   protection  
management  systems  (Wooldridge  et  al,  1999).  The  implications  of  national  (Ierland  et  al,  2000)  or  port  

20  
 
  

level  (the  clean  truck  program  in  Los  Angeles  and  Long  Beach:  Goodchild  &  Mohan,  2008)  environmental  
regulations  on  the  integration  with  intermodal  chains  are  also  studied.  Policy  analysis  initially  focused  on  
national  policies  towards  sustainability  (Gilman,  2003).  EU  developments  were  followed  by  assessments  
of  the  industry  perceptions  (Stojanovic  et  al,  2006)  and  policies  (Psaraftis,  2005b).    

Security  is  an  emerging  theme,  especially  following  the  ISPS  Code.  Research  deals  with  political  risks  (Tsai  
&   Su,   2005),   implications   of   an   incident   (Park   et   al,   2008),   the   security   incident   cycle   (Pinto   &   Talley,  
2006),   and   the   appropriate   application   of   the   ISPS   Code   (Bichou,   2004).   The   impact   of   security   initiatives  
developed   by   national   (Banomyong,   2005;   Blumel   et   al,   2008),   or   supranational   (Dekker   &   Stevens,  
2007),  authorities  are  also  assessed  (Yip,  2008).  

A   last   group   of   studies   examines   constitutional   issues   (Newman   &   Walder,   2003),   and   industry  
perceptions   at   national   (Everett,   2005)   and   supranational   (Pallis,   1997;   Casaca-­‐Paixaio,   2006;   2008)  
levels.   Economic   appraisals   of   national   decisions   (Asteris   &   Collins,   2006;   2007),   and   studies   of   (limits   of)  
national  policy-­‐making  either  in  general  (Stough,  2005,  Pettitt,  2007;  Everett,  2008;  Goss,  1998;  Mak  &  
Tai,   2001;   Pettit,   2008;   Ubbels,   2005;   Canamero,   2000),   or   in   particular   sectors   (Robinson,   2007   for   coal;  
Casaca-­‐Paixao  &  Marlow,  2007,  for  short-­‐sea  shipping),  add  to  the  body  of  knowledge  on  port  policies.    

 
Table  8.  Port  Policy  and  Regulation:  Widely  used  Approaches  
Themes   Details  
Market  access   Application  of  mainstream  economic  concepts:  economic  rent,  market  
contestability,  consolidation,  limited  competition,  entry  barriers;  interest  
in  EU  developments  
Pricing  Mechanisms   Notably   popular;   inconclusive   debate;   theories   applied:   marginal   cost  
principle,   welfare   economics,   strategic   price   setting,   and   services  
differentiation;   specific   user   /service/   market   peculiarities   only  
occasionally  researched  

Financing     Public  good  theory;  association  with  pricing  mechanisms;  recent  interest  in  
implications  of  congestion  
Environmental   Fragmented  research  theme;  emerging  interest  in  EU  developments  
Safety  and  Security   Security  is  an  emerging  field;  problem  definition  is  still  missing;  first  
attempts  to  estimate  the  impact  of  regulations.    
Safety  is  understudied;    
Competencies  of  policy  making-­‐ Descriptive   studies   and   economic   &   constitutional   appraisals;   comparisons  
levels   with   industry’s   perceptions;   general   approach,   rarely   based   on   market   or  
other  peculiars;  lack  of  coherence.  

Institutional  issues   National-­‐  Regional  –intergovernmental  approaches;  few  studies;  lack  of  
coherence  

21  
 
  

 
2.6 Port  Competition  and  Competitiveness              

Three   broadly   defined   methods   to   assess   port   competition11   and   competitiveness   issues   can   be  
identified:   (a)   surveys,   (b)   analyses   of   efficiency   and   productivity   based   on   port   data,   and   (c)   ‘formal’  
modelling.   Most   studies   focus   on   (container)   freight   (see:   Pantouvakis   (2006)   and   Pantouvakis   et   al,  
(2008)  for  passenger  ports;  Poist  (2003)  for  inland  port  selection).    

There   are   also   more   descriptive   contributions   (e.g.   Cullinane   et   al,   2004;   Cullinane   et   al,   2005a;  
Goulielmos   &   Pardali,   2002;   Pettit   &   Beresford,   2008)   and   studies   focusing   on   the   impact   of   specific  
regulatory   developments   (e.g.   the   extended   gate   operations:   Giuliano   &   O'Brien,   2008)   and   EU   policy  
(Perez-­‐Labajos  &  Blanco,  2004).  Teurelincx  (2000)  presents  a  method  to  determine  a  port’s  strengths  and  
weaknesses.   Haezendonck   et   al   (2000a)   use   an   extended   version   of   Porter’s   diamond   (also:   Acosta   et   al,  
2007)  combined  with  the  resource-­‐based  view  (2001),  to  determine  a  port’s  competitive  position.  De  &  
Ghosh  (2003)  develop  a  “port  performance  index”  (PPI)  with  the  help  of  principal  component  analysis.        

Pando   et   al   (2005)   identify   marketing   tools   used   by   ports,   while   Cahoon   (2007)   calls   for   their   further   use  
to  attract  users.  Weston  &  Robinson  (2008)  analyse  the  implications  of  value  migration  in  port-­‐oriented  
freight   systems   and   the   importance   of   controlling   the   endpoints   of   the   chain   (see   also   Magala,   2007   and  
2008).    

Additional   studies   address   port   co-­‐opetition   (Song,   2002;   2003),   intra-­‐port   competition   (De   Langen   &  
Pallis,  2006),  and  lean  ports  performance  measurements  (Marlow  &  Paixao-­‐Casaca,  2003).  Bichou  &  Gray  
(2004)   suggest   that   the   multiple   linkages   with   SC   and   logistics   have   to   be   taken   into   account   when  
assessing   performance   (also:   Magala   &   Simmons,   2008).   Guardado   et   al   (2004;   also:   Pardali   &  
Michalopoulos,   2008)   assess   benchmarking   practises   in   ports   based   on   geo-­‐strategic   location,   links   to  
hinterland,  and  complementary  logistics  services.          

The   most   cited   survey-­‐based   research   is   the   analytical   hierarchy   process   approach   (AHP),   a   multiple  
criteria   decision-­‐making   methodology   to   approach   container   port   competitiveness   (see:   Yeo   &   Song,  
2006;  Song  &  Yeo,  2004).  Lirn  et  al  (2003,  2004)  apply  AHP  on  transhipment  port  selection  (also:  Wong  et  
al,   2008;   Ugboma   et   al   2006;   2007).   Ng   (2006)   surveys   shipping   lines   to   assess   the   attractiveness   of  

                                                                                                                       
11
  Fleming   &   Baird   (1999)   stipulated   that   the   term   “port   competition”   is   a   rather   puzzling   expression   that   needs  
clarification.   They   outline   six   sets   of   factors   that   influence   port   competitiveness:   port   tradition   and   organization,  
port   accessibility   by   land   and   sea,   state   aids   and   their   influence   on   port   costs,   port   productivity,   port   selection  
preferences  of  carriers  and  shippers  and  comparative  locational  advantage  

22  
 
  

Northern   European   transhipment   ports.   Tongzon   &   Sawant   (2007)   compare   stated   versus   actual   choices  
to  indentify  port  choice  determinants.    

Tiwari  et  al  (2003)  use  a  discrete  choice  model  to  assess  shippers  and  carriers  port  selection  behaviour,  
reporting  that  Chinese  shippers  prefer  Chinese  shipping  lines  whereas  foreign  shippers’  choice  is  based  
on   their   preferable   port.   Nir   et   al   (2003)   apply   the   Multinomial   Logit   model   for   the   determination   of  
shippers’   port   choice   elements,   concluding   that   shippers   consider   mainly   travel   time   and   cost.   Quality  
related  interviews  (Ha,  2003),  multi-­‐criteria  (Guy  &  Urli,  2006)  and  exploratory  factor  analysis  (Young-­‐Tae  
et   al   2008)   are   used   for   revealing   port   choice   determinants.   Mangan   et   al   (2002)   conclude   that   the  
decisive  factors  in  RoRo  port/ferry  choice  differ  from  other  segments  (e.g.  facilities  for  a  rest  break  are  
important  in  RoRo  port  choice).    

Another  stream  of  research  develops  port  competitiveness  measures  employing  data  such  as  land  area  
and   employment   (inputs)   and   throughput   volumes   (output12).   These   papers   are   strongly   linked   with  
terminal  productivity  studies  but  deal  with  the  port  as  a  whole.  The  most  influential  ones  use  empirical  
data  from  Spain  (Martinez-­‐Budria  et  al,  1999;  Coto-­‐Millan  et  al,  2000),  probably  because  the  system  is  
centrally  administered  and  detailed  data  for  comparative  analysis  are  available.  Park  &  De  (2004)  adopt  a  
DEA   method   to   measure   multi-­‐stage   efficiency   with   the   four   steps   being:   productivity,   profitability,  
marketability  and  overall  efficiency.  Versions  of  DEA  (in  many  instances  combined  with  other  techniques  
and  indices)  are  used  to  assess  port  efficiency  in  Spain  (Martinez-­‐Budria  et  al  1999;  Bonilla  et  al,  2002;  
Bonilla   et   al,   2004),   Portugal   (Barros,   2003),   Mexico   (Estache   et   al,   2004),   Italy   (Barros,   2006),   Asian-­‐
Pacific  (Liu,  2008)  and  major  world  ports  (Cullinane  et  al,  2005b)  or  to  compare  ports  (Garcia-­‐Alonso  &  
Martin-­‐Bofarull,  2007)  and  systems  (Barros  &  Athanasiou,  2004).  International  productivity  comparisons  
were  conducted  with  the  application  of  the  Luenderger  Index  (Barros  &  Peypoch,  2007).    

Coto-­‐Millan   et   al   (2000)   use   a   stochastic   frontier   cost   function   to   estimate   the   economic   efficiency   of  
ports  through  panel  data.  Combining  stochastic  frontier  models  (also:  Trujillo  &  Tovar,  2007;  Estache  &  
Gonzalez,  2002),  and  benchmarking,  Cullinane  &  Song  (2003)  measure  port  efficiency  concluding  that  in  
the   specific   context   greater   privatization   does   not   seem   to   be   closely   associated   with   enhanced  
efficiency.  The  effects  of  inter-­‐port  competition  are  also  analysed  via  slot  capacity  analysis  (Yap  &  Lam,  
2006;   2008;   Yap   et   al,   2006)   and   evaluation   of   competitiveness   components   (Yeo   et   al,   2008).   Total  
Factor   productivity   was   also   used   (De,   2006)   for   measuring   port   performance.   Doi   et   al   (2001)   apply   a  

                                                                                                                       
12
 Haezendock  et  al  (2000b)  suggest  an  alternative  port  performance  indicator  (output):  value  added  generated  in  
ports.  They  also  provide  with  a  method  to  calculate  value  added  on  the  basis  of  the  throughput  of  a  port.  

23  
 
  

general   equilibrium   model   using   data   from   the   Japanese   economy   in   order   to   estimate   the   impact   of  
port  efficiency  on  the  country’s  economy.    

The   use   of   ‘formal’   port   competition   modelling   is   rather   limited.   Lam   &   Yap   (2006)   use   a   modified  
Cournot’s   simultaneous   quantity-­‐setting   model   to   derive   the   overall   costs   of   using   a   terminal.   Game  
theoretic   models   are   used   to   understand   how   competing   ports   respond   to   developments   at   a   given   port  
(Anderson  et  al,  2008)  and  to  optimise  the  allocation  of  containerized  cargo  volumes  (Leachman,  2008).    

Veldman  &  Buckman  (2003;  Veldman  et  al  2005)  develop  a  logit  model  where  explanatory  variables  such  
as  transport  cost,  transit  time,  frequency  of  service,  and  quality  indicators  shape  port  choice.  Malchow  &  
Kanafani  (2001)  use  a  multinomial  logit  model  to  explain  port  selection  (also  the  discrete  choice  model  
in:   Malchow   &   Kanafani,   2004).   Stochastic   choice   models   (Garrido   &   Leva,   2004)   are   also   used   for  
revealing  port  choice  determinants.      

Table  9.  Port  Competition  &  Competitiveness  Studies:  Widely  used  Approaches  
Themes   Details  
Port  Choice   Use  of  AHP  methodology,  collecting  preferences  through  surveys,  
port  choice  today  is  relied  upon  independent  shippers  and  freight  
forwarders.    
Also  use  of  discrete  choice  analysis,  multinomial  logit  model,  
triangulated  methodology    
Port  competitiveness   Adoption   of   a   port   wide   analysis,   extensive   use   of   DEA,   SFA,   TFP,  
slot  capacity  analysis  and  PCA  methodologies  with  main  differences  
relied  upon  the  selected  inputs  and  outputs  used.    

Modelling  port  competition   Limited  number  of  papers,  efforts  to  include  as  much  variables  as  
possible  into  the  models.    
Use  of  Cournot’s  simultaneous  quantity-­‐setting,  multinomial,logit,  
discrete  choice,  game  theoretic  and  stochastic  choice  models    
Theoretical  advances   Port  co-­‐opetition,  intra-­‐port  competition,  lean  ports  performance,  
benchmarking,  links  with  supply  chains  
Descriptive  analysis   Through  descriptive  analysis  critical  factors  determining  ports  
competitiveness  are  revealed  
 

To  conclude,  surveys,  efficiency  analysis,  and  economic  models  of  port  competition  have  all  added  to  the  
understanding   of   port   competition   and   competitiveness.   The   latter   is   probably   the   most   promising  
future   research   avenue,   as   limited   data   availability   constrains   the   analysis   of   port   efficiency   and  
performance,  while  (port  choice)  surveys  may  not  yield  detailed  additional  insights.    

24  
 
  

2.7 Spatial  Analysis  of  Ports  

Spatial   analysis   of   ports   can   be   divided   in   four   sub-­‐topics:   (a)   spatial   change,   (b)   port   systems,   (c)   the  
port-­‐city   interface,   and   (d)   the   spatial   analysis   of   port   hinterlands.   The   analysis   of   cargo  
(de)concentration  is  central.13  Empirical  research  demonstrates  that  some  port  systems  and  ranges  are  
increasingly   concentrated   (in   spatial   terms),   while   others   become   more   evenly   distributed.   Analysing  
container   flows   in   Europe,   Notteboom   (1997)   countered   the   prevailing   assumption   that   containerization  
leads  to  further  concentration,  and  concluded  that  deconcentration  was  not  a  result  of  the  ‘peripheral  
port   challenge’   (Slack   &   Wang,   2002).   McCalla   (1999)   argues   that   greenfield   development   challenge  
traditional  ports,  providing  evidence  of  container  traffic  deconcentration  in  North  America.  Overman  &  
Winters   (2005)   studied   how   the   evolving   geography   of   UK   international   trade   has   worked   in   favour   of  
ports   located   nearer   to   the   European   mainland.   Medda   &   Carbonaro   (2007)   analyze   the   spatial  
distribution  of  container  traffic  in  the  Mediterranean,  while  Notteboom  (2006)  uses  Gini  Decomposition  
Analysis  to  understand  the  spatial  dynamics  in  port  systems.  

The   analysis   of   port   systems   remained   virtually   unchanged   since   the   1980s.   In   2005,   Notteboom   &  
Rodrigue   (2005)   resuscitated   the   discussion   by   introducing   ‘port   regionalization’,   as   higher   levels   of  
integration   with   inland   freight   distribution   systems   enhance   efficiency.   Market   forces   and   political  
influences   gradually   shape   regional   load   centre   networks   with   varying   linkages.   ‘Regionalization’   partly  
builds  upon  Van  Klink’s  (1997)  empirical  results  on  port  networking,  and  his  theoretical  findings  on  port  
networks  (Van  Klink,  1998).  

Slack  (1999)  studies  satellite  terminals  that  can  serve  to  accommodate  traffic  growth,  when  the  ‘hub’  is  
congested  (for  the  land  shortage  issue:  Pellegram,  2001).  Slack  &  Wang  (2002)  study  the  emergence  of  
regional   ports   located   near   a   dominant   port.   Fleming   (1997)   present   an   alternative   world   container   port  
ranking  by  defining  regional  load  centers  consisting  of  multiple  ports.    

Spatial  port  studies  in  recent  years  have  undergone  a  fundamental  shift  in  the  conceptualisation  of  the  
port,  from  a  single  fixed  spatial  entity  to  a  network  of  terminals,  managed  by  specific  firms  (Hall,  2004).  
Research   on   ‘foreland-­‐port-­‐hinterland’   relations   focuses   on   developments   in   maritime   and/or   hinterland  
networks  that  shape  the  spatial  hierarchy  of  port  systems.  Most  of  these  contributions  comprise  case-­‐

                                                                                                                       
13
 A  longstanding  literature  in  port  geography  exists  on  the  spatial  development  of  seaport  systems  in  relation  to  
maritime  and  hinterland  networks  (cf.  the  models  developed  in  the  1960s  and  1970s:  Ogundana,  1970;  Taaffe  et  al,  
1963).  In  the  1980s,  scholars  introduced  a  process  of  port  system  deconcentration  (cf.  Hayuth,  1981).  

25  
 
  

studies.   Van   Klink   &   Van   de   Berg   (1998)   argue   that   gateways   are   in   an   excellent   position   to   stimulate  
intermodal   transport,   by   creating   new   hinterlands   and   extend   their   potential   through   the   supply   of  
intermodal   services   (see   Cullinane   et   al   (2002)   for   an   analysis   of   China’s   underdeveloped   intermodal  
network).    

Modelling  tools  are  used  to  analyse  maritime  network  configuration  (Zeng  &  Yang,  2002  and  Aversa  et  al,  
2005).  Fleming  (2000),  McCalla   et  al  (2005),  McCalla  (2008a  and  2008b),  Veenstra  et  al  (2005)  and  Baird  
(2006)   analyse   the   location   of   transhipment   activities   empirically.   Luo   &   Grigalunas   (2003)   present   a  
spatial-­‐economic,  multimodal  container  transportation  demand  simulation  model  for  major  US  container  
ports,  based  on  minimization  of  the  total  generalised  cost  of  moving  containers  from  sources  to  markets.    

Effects   of   spatial   changes   on   port   cities   have   received   attention   as   well.   Hoyle   (1999)   studies   the  
substantial   variance   of   the   degree   and   nature   of   community   group   influence   on   the   processes   and  
pattern   of   urban   waterfront   change.   Tan   (2007)   provides   a   comparative   study   on   the   interaction  
between  port  cities  and  their  hinterlands  (see  also  Gleave,  1997).  

Ducruet  &  Lee  (2006)  analyse  the  port–city  evolution,  by  measuring  the  relative  concentration  of  port–
city  functions  at  a  global  level.  They  conclude  this  evolution  is  gradual  rather  than  linear  or  chaotic,  and  
influenced   by   regional   factors.   Wang   &   Olivier   (2006)   argue   that   port   free-­‐trade   zone   bundles   act   as  
interfaces  between  local  and  global  spaces.  

Table  10.  Studies  on  the  spatial  analysis  of  seaports:  Widely  used  Approaches  
Themes   Details  
Port  city  development   Waterfront  development  
Port  cities  and  global  supply  chains  
Stakeholder  involvement  in  port  development  
Port  system  development   Concentration/deconcentration  patterns  
Gini  coefficient  and  Gini  Decomposition  Analysis  
The  challenge  of  the  periphery  
Impact  of  actors  (e.g.  shipping  line  alliances,  terminal  networks)  
on  port  system  dynamics  and  port  hierarchy  
Port  Regionalization    
Interaction  between  port  system   Gateways  and  corridors  
and  hinterland  networks     Inland  ports  as  satellites  to  load  centres  
Modelling  optimal  port  location   Minimization  of  system  costs  (maritime,  port,  hinterland)  
and  optimal  port  system   Mixed  Integer  Programming  
configuration   Hub  location  models  
Regional  liner  service  networks  
 

26  
 
  

The   above   analysis   shows   that   case-­‐studies   dominate   this   field.   Given   the   focus   on   containers,   and  
seaports,     the   research   efforts   can   be   expanded   along   two   dimensions:   (a)   towards   more   commodity-­‐
based  port  systems  (e.g.  dry  bulk)  and  cruise/passenger  ports  (cf.  McCalla  (1998)  on  cruise  ports),  and  (b)  
towards  the  dynamics  in  inland  port  systems  (cf.  Comtois  et  al,  1997).  

Secondly,  the  literature  focuses  on  hubs  and  large  gateways  (e.g.  Frémont  &  Ducruet  (2005)  on  Busan;  
Oosterhaven   et   al   (2001)   on   Dutch   mainports;   Lee   et   al   (2008)   on   global   hub   port   cities;   and   Grobar  
(2008)   on   US   ports).   There   is   a   gap   when   it   comes   to   declining   ports   and   smaller   ports   (an   exemption  
being  the  study  on  the  position  of  upstream  river  ports  by  Guy  &  Alix,  2007).    Thus,  more  comparative  
research  is  needed  on  how  seaport  systems  spatially  behave  under  different  market  environments  (e.g.  
an   overall   traffic   decline   due   to   an   economic   crisis)   and   different   institutional   settings   (e.g.  
‘centralization’  of  port  policy  and  applicable  governance  models).      

 
 

3. CONCLUDING  REMARKS  

Research  on  ports  has  gone  through  a  metamorphosis,  caused  by  progress  in  research  domains  such  as  
geography,  econometrics,  welfare  economics,  operations  research,  logistics  and  strategic  management.  
Research  on  ports  is  continuously  expanding:  48%  of  the  395  studies  were  published  in  the  last  third  of  
the   examined   period   (2005-­‐8).   Ports   have   extensively   and   structurally   transformed   to   adjust   to   new  
economic  environments.  This  triggered  the  introduction  of  new  concepts  to  understand  their  integration  
in  SC.    

Port  studies  published  the  period  1997-­‐2008  can  be  classified  in  seven  research  categories,  with  various  
links  between  them,  see  Figure  1  -­‐  arrows  based  on  citation  to/from  the  different  research  themes.  

 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

27  
 
  

Figure  1.  Relations  between  the  Different  Categories  of  Port  Studies  

Ports in transport &

supply chains Terminal studies

Port planning & Spatial analysis

Port governance
development of seaports

Port competition &

Port policy & regulation
competitiveness
 
Port  studies  are  somewhat  fragmented  and  lack  coherence.  There  are  few  really  influential  studies  (cited  
extensively   by   others),   and   in   some   sub-­‐fields   (e.g.   port   governance)   cross-­‐citations   are   remarkably  
limited.   Even   though   this   finding   needs   to   be   treated   with   some   caution   (109   studies   could   not   have  
been  cited  as  a  two  years  citation  time-­‐lag  normally  exists;  and  the  entire  research  field  is  comparatively  
recent),   it   certainly   implies   challenges   with   respect   to   the   organisation   of   research   in   port   economics,  
policy  and  management.    

While   the   number   of   true   comparative   studies   on   ports   around   the   world   is   limited,   research  
collaboration   is   increasing.   Further   collaboration   would   help   to   overcome   the   ‘localisation   of   research.  
More  importantly,  it  would  advance  the  coherence  of  port  studies,  enabling  them  to  move  to  a  mature  
independent  research  field   14  marked  by  (a)  the  presence  of  a  distinct  research  community,  (b)  directed  
by   a   consensus   on   definitions,   concepts,   problems   to   be   investigated,   and   methodology   and   (c)   studying  
issues  with  a  common  framework.    

Compared  to  other  disciplines,  port  researchers  face  a  lack  of  data  availability.  The  compilation  of  port-­‐
related  databases  demands  substantial  manpower  and  time.  Although  some  data  are  too  detailed  or  too  

                                                                                                                       
14
  The   ‘pre-­‐paradigmatic’   phase   of   a   research   field   is   characterized   by   (a)   the   presence   of   several   small   research  
communities   working   on   their   own   problems;   (b)   little   references   to   other   researchers   (or   only   within   the   own  
research   group);   and   (c)   the   lack   of   common   problem   definitions,   hypothesis,   definitions   and   concepts;   The  
characteristics   of   both   the   ‘pre-­‐paradigmatic’   phase   and   the   “mature”   phase   are   those   defined   by   the   science  
philosopher   Kuhn,   and   applied   amongst   others   by   Bontekoning   et   al   (2004)   in   their   study   of   intermodal  
transportation  research.  

28  
 
  

expensive  to  collect,  the  gaps  in  statistical  coverage  are  too  large  to  be  ignored.  Many  researchers  are  no  
longer   investing   in   own   databases,   but   rely   on   second-­‐best   solutions   to   the   data   problem   (often   through  
external   private   databases,   developed   for   other   purposes).   Generally,   the   port   industry   still   has   to   be  
convinced  of  the  value  of  accessible  port-­‐related  data  and  subsequent  academic  analysis.              

Finally,  it  is  worth  noting  that  scholarly  port  research  usually  deals  with  very  specific  topics,  whereas  port  
managers   and   policymakers   are   generally   interested   in   an   overall   view   of   ports,   e.g.   combining  
economic,   land-­‐use   planning   and   environmental   aspects.   In   line   with   previous   similar   endeavours  
(Suykens   &   Van   de   Voorde   1998;   Heaver,   2006;   Pallis   et   al,   2010)   the   present   study   has   been   conducted  
with  the  aim  of  contributing  towards  this  end.  

 
REFERENCES  
(Additional  sources  that  are  not  included  in  the  list  of  395  reviewed  port  studies  -­‐  the  full  list  of  reviewed  
port  studies  is  available  in  hard  copy  as  part  of  the  paper:  Pallis  et  al.  (2010);  they  are  also  available  on-­‐
line  at  the  Journal’s  web-­‐page.  For  continuous  updates  on  published  port  studies  we  refer  to  the  website  
www.porteconomics.eu).  
 

Ashar,   A.   (1995),   Factor   analysis   and   benchmarking   ports’   performance,   Maritime   Policy   and  
Management,  22(4):  389-­‐390  

Bontekoning,  Y.M.,  Macharis,  C.  and  Trip,  J.J.  (2004),  Is  a  new  applied  transportation  field  emerging?  A  
review  of  intermodal  rail-­‐truck  freight  transport  literature,  Transportation  Research  Part  A,  38(1):  1–
34.  
Goss,   R.O.   (1990),   Economic   policies   and   seaports:   (1)   The   economic   functions   of   seaports,   Maritime  
Policy   and   Management,   17(3):   207–219.   (2)   The   diversity   of   port   policies.   Maritime   Policy   and  
Management,   17(3):   221–234.   (3)   Are   port   authorities   necessary?   Maritime   Policy   and  
Management,   17(3):   257–271.   (4)   Strategies   for   port   authorities.   Maritime   Policy   and   Management,  
17(3):  273–287.  
Heaver   T.D.   (2006),   The   evolution   and   challenges   of   port   economics,   in   K.     Cullinane   and   W.   Talley   (eds),  
Port  Economics,  Research  in  Transportation  Economics  No  16,  Oxford:  Elsevier,  pp.  11-­‐41.  
Hayuth,  Y.  (1981),  Containerisation  and  the  load  centre  concept,  Economic  Geography,  57:  160-­‐176.      
Hayuth,  Y.  and  Roll,  Y.  (1993),  Port  performance  comparison  applying  data  envelopment  analysis  (DEA),  
Maritime  Policy  and  Management,  20:  153-­‐161.  
Ogundana,   B.   (1970),   Patterns   and   problems   of   seaport   evolution   in   Nigeria.   In:   Hoyle,   B.S.,   Hilling,   D.  
(Eds.),  Seaports  and  Development  in  Tropical  Africa.  Macmillan:  London,  pp.  167–182.  
Pallis,  A.A.  Vitsounis,  T.K.  and  De  Langen,  P.W.  (2010),  Port  economics,  policy  and  management  -­‐  Review  
of  an  emerging  research  field,  Transport  Reviews,  30(1):  115-­‐161.  

29  
 
  

Saaty,   TL.   (1977),   A   scaling   method   for   priorities   in   hierarchical   structures,   Journal   of   Mathematical  
Psychology,  15:  234–281.  
Slack,  B.  (1994),  Pawns  in  the  Game:  Ports  in  a  Global  Transport  System,  Growth  and  Change,  24(4):  597-­‐
598.    
Stahlbock,   R.   and   Voss,   S.   (2008),   Operations   research   at   container   terminals:   a   literature   update,   OR  
Spectrum,  30(1):  1–52.    

Song;  D-­‐W.  and  Cullinane,  K.P.B.  (1999),  Efficiency  Measurement  of  Container  Terminal  Operations:  An  
Analytical  Framework,  Journal  of  the  Eastern  Asia  Society  for  Transportation  Studies,  3(2):  139-­‐154.  

Taaffe,   E.J.,   Morrill,   R.L.   and   Gould,   P.R.   (1963),   Transport   expansion   in   underdeveloped   countries:   a  
comparative  analysis,  Geographical  Review,  53:  503-­‐529.  
Tongzon,   J.L.   (1995),   Systematizing   international   benchmarking   for   ports,   Maritime   Policy   and  
Management,  22(2):  171-­‐177.  
 

30  
 

View publication stats